Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Draka said:Standards for science are higher. Religion is based on non-provable "faith" led theories. It is what is "felt" or possibly read in a book. There is no basis for "truth" for religion except personal feelings and interpretations of internal and external factors. Whereas science must be proven through repeatable tests and experiments. The standards are higher for "proof" and therefore "truth".
Victor,Victor said:The Etiological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
The Teleological Argument
Argument from Design
Argument from Adaptation
The Ontological Argument
The Axiological Argument
The Moral Argument
mr.guy said:Victor,
If one were approaching these arguments without pre-supposing god, how serendipitously would he appear within them?
Welcome. There are many religious people here. But not all of them accept the Bible as the truth or as 100% accurate.youngobadiah said:Are people on this site simply non-religious or what!
Uh...understand what? That wine makes people happy? Except...alcohol is a depressant.youngobadiah said:Psalm 104:
'15And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.'
How long did it take for people to understand this!
Science hasn't. People have.youngobadiah said:Lets admit it science has ruined our earth.
We have gained great things through science. Medicine, anyone?youngobadiah said:one may say we have gained great things through science but look at the state of this earth now. Its nearly ruined!
I agree. Even religious beliefs that focus mainly on the use of reason - such as deism - require faith. Not that that is bad (note that I am a theist), but Draka is right - science is proven factually while religion is mostly faith-based.Draka said:Standards for science are higher. Religion is based on non-provable "faith" led theories. It is what is "felt" or possibly read in a book. There is no basis for "truth" for religion except personal feelings and interpretations of internal and external factors. Whereas science must be proven through repeatable tests and experiments. The standards are higher for "proof" and therefore "truth".
Linearly speaking, which direction are you careening in, though?vic said:I just don't stop there.
mr.guy said:Linearly speaking, which direction are you careening in, though?
What bears questioning regarding standards of truth (i think) would be a small aside as to the dimensioning available for describing truth, in all it's big knobby glory!
What?? Santa?? You mean...he doesn't exist?? :ignore:Victor said:I'm lean toward parsimony and go from there. If my senses and emperical perceptions don't relate to it (which is long winded process through experience, etc.) then several possibilities start dropping like flies. Santa Claus dropped long ago....
alexander garcia said:Hi, I would like to say something. If we look at the truth it is simple to answer this question. What does science state ? If we can find one thing wrong through out the book. Well can any one come up with this one thing? I have hurd many try but not one lagit answer. Now lets put science to the same test. Now because this is funny to me, I'll first give your answer . That was years ago and we know the truth now. HAHA Is the world still flat? cause science has MURDERED many people for not believing that lie from the devil. Now the question is how many more lives will be lost to science. Facists are based on science and evolution.